Integration of sensory, sensor-based, and volatile analyses reveals flavor gaps between plant-based meat analogs and beef patties.

Meat analogs represent a rapidly expanding sector of the food industry; however, it remains unclear whether increased volatile diversity in plant-based products translates into beef-like sensory authenticity, particularly due to the lack of integrated sensory-instrumental evaluation in commercially available systems. Here, five commercial plant-based patties were compared with conventional beef (TM) under standardized cooking conditions using combined sensory mapping and instrumental analyses. Sensory resemblance to beef was not determined by volatile abundance, but by specific sensory drivers and reaction-derived aroma markers. Napping-UFP showed that S1 and S2 were positioned closer to TM in perceptual space, with S1 additionally exhibiting meat-like textural attributes (tight, springy, chewy), whereas other samples were associated with softer structures and oxidation-related off-notes. Instrumental analyses revealed method-dependent similarity patterns: E-nose PCA showed partial odor overlap between S2 and TM, while E-tongue PCA indicated distinct taste-response distributions rather than convergence toward beef. SPME-GC-TOF-MS identified 58 volatile compounds in TM and 87-108 in plant-based samples; despite this higher diversity, beef was characterized by lipid-oxidation-related aldehydes (e.g., hexanal, nonanal) and reaction-derived compounds associated with cooked meat aroma, whereas plant-based patties were dominated by furans, esters, and plant-derived oxidation products. These results demonstrate that improving meat-like authenticity requires targeting reaction-specific aroma pathways and texture architecture rather than increasing overall volatile complexity, providing a mechanistic basis for next-generation formulation strategies.